Once again, the response to our DIY player ratings for the Wallabies was overwhelming, with just under 1000 entries.
Really good work Roarers, and thanks for getting involved in the process. Makes it an easy decision for me about whether we keep going with it.
That said, we do have a troll. This has only been going for two weeks and I had to delete around 50 entries which were just purely 1s. I do feel sorry for that person who did that. A lot of time wasted not to be counted in the vote. Deleting rows in excel is much easier than entering them in via forms…
Anyway!
This week, we had something of a revamped Wallabies team take on the Pumas, who struggled to make an impact in attack.
The Wallabies were good, if not great, but finished off the game with lots of class, which saw the scoreline blow out to 34-9.
Here are our ratings, mean and mode, for the Wallabies.
The Roar‘s Wallabies player ratings by average:
1. James Slipper – 4.5
2. Stephen Moore – 6.7
3. Greg Holmes – 5.7
4. Will Skelton – 5.8
5. Rob Simmons – 6
6. Scott Fardy – 5.8
7. David Pocock – 8.3
8. Ben McCalman – 6.5
9. Nick Phipps – 6.5
10. Bernard Foley – 5.4
11. Joe Tomane – 6.4
12. Matt Toomua – 5.4
13. Tevita Kuridrani – 6.6
14. Adam Ashley-Cooper – 6.4
15. Israel Folau – 7.8
Reserves:
16. Tatafu Polota-Nau – 6.2
17. Scott Sio – 6.7
18. Sekope Kepu – 6.3
19. Dean Mumm – 6.9
20. Michael Hooper – 6.7
21. Nic White – 5
22. Quade Cooper – 4.4
23. Kurtley Beale – 6.1
The Roar‘s Wallabies player ratings by most selected option:
1. James Slipper – 4
2. Stephen Moore – 7
3. Greg Holmes – 6
4. Will Skelton – 6
5. Rob Simmons – 6
6. Scott Fardy – 6
7. David Pocock – 9
8. Ben McCalman – 7
9. Nick Phipps – 7
10. Bernard Foley – 6
11. Joe Tomane – 6
12. Matt Toomua – 5
13. Tevita Kuridrani – 6
14. Adam Ashley-Cooper – 7
15. Israel Folau – 8
Reserves:
16. Tatafu Polota-Nau – 7
17. Scott Sio – 7
18. Sekope Kepu – 6
19. Dean Mumm – 7
20. Michael Hooper – 7
21. Nic White – 5
22. Quade Cooper – 5
23. Kurtley Beale – 6
Mode mode
My observation, just based on my opinion after watching the game, is that our average tends to be on the low side, while our mode is pretty much on the money, though even that might be a little low.
Fox example, Quade Cooper had a 5 on his mode score, which I think is pretty fair compared to his mean of 4.4.
Ben McCalman’s mode score was 7, while his mean was 6.5. I think those are both better reflections of the games those two played. I’m happy to be disagreed with, of course.
The point is, we aren’t the most generous of scorers, but that’s what makes this interesting. I don’t look forward to the ratings when we lose though…
The one of the week:
Aside from those who thought it was funny to add in heaps of ones, others did decide to dish out the ones also.
The award for the most ones this week goes to, surprise surprise, Quade Cooper, with around 45 legitimate people giving him ones.
Still rather high, you’d say. He really wasn’t a negative on the team. Or was he? I know I’m straying outside my job description, but it seems harsh.
Perfect 10:
David Pocock!
It’s no surprise that the highest-scoring player gets the most tens, with a total of 55 for his performance. People really like the way David Pocock plays!
Israel Folau was second, with 24 tens. Guess who was third? Of course it was – Quade Cooper had 19 tens.
Geez…
Anyway Roarers, what do you make of the data?
I’ll remind everyone of my suggested ratings list.
1. Had he not played, the team would have been better off. Negatively affected the performance of the side. May God have mercy on his soul.
2. Anonymous. Was he even there?
3. Did some things that you expect a player to be able to do, but did a whole bunch of other things that sucked.
4. Was passable in patches, but not up to standard in a squad of such depth.
5. Performed his role without anything really noticeable happening.
6. Good
7. Pretty good, actually
8. Very good
9. Excellent
10. Might as well have been John Eales
Looking forward to two weeks time, and our next instalment of DIY player ratings (because we at The Roar are just too lazy to do it for you).
Patrick Effeney
Editor
It's a good idea Ethan, so long as someone is willing to note down the substitution times!
Patrick Effeney
Editor
There's certainly an argument to be made for that. I would then have to note all the subs when I watch the games...
ethan
Guest
Agreed. It feels a touch on the low side, especially the mean, but the mode scores feels close enough. Shows we are a pretty tough bunch to please here at the Roar. Pity about the trolls, but the weight of numbers voting correctly minimizes their influence to something irrelevant. I also think that any player who plays less than 20-30 minutes probably shouldn't be rated.
PeterK
Roar Guru
I understand standard deviations and outliers very well and hence my point that a score of 10 for Pocock was not an issue. Trouble is you stated anyone who gives a player a 1 or a 10 is pushing an agenda, you did not limit that statement or provide context.
Argy
Roar Pro
PeterK, if a player is worth 10, then give him 10. If he's really that good then lots of others will too and then the score won't fall outside the standard deviation. But if no-one else gives him above a 7 (say) then it is quite likely that an agenda is at play and the 10 should be removed as an outlier. A statistician can probably explain it a lot better than I can...
jeznez
Roar Guru
My initial thought was the scores are low. Last week both the average and the mode came out at 6.5 from memory. I thought for a game that except for the narrowest score at the very death could have been a loss, and due to the trouble retaining possession before the Boks big guns left the field it was a reasonable score. This week we've scored a bit lower, average 6.2 and mode 6.3 - if we look at the ill discipline, yellow card, citing, reversing penalties, forward pass issues with two of our tries, playing a weaker opposition, a player out of position at 12 - are we being harsh? Does the scoreline flatter us and this was a slightly worse performance than the week before? 6.3 may sound low but by the guidelines given to us a 6 equals "GOOD" if you take the 6.5 last week and round up to 7 then that was "PRETTY GOOD, ACTUALLY" In the context of the performance and the way we are rating the scores - they feel about right.
Existentialist
Guest
I think there must have been some drunk people clicking on buttons ... or they let their children vote! As I haven't seen that much swing(ing) since my neighbours "key party" a while back for Quade - sort of discredits the efforts you made Paddy in my eyes. Luckily it was a small pool of jokers ;) But otherwise good job and almost a true reflection of the individuals participation for a team game! ps. Dean Mumm a 7? I guess marked solely for that try. Thought Simmons could be a bit higher as well
PeterK
Roar Guru
but only on for 5 mins, that could be the reason for some people because they can't do a N/A. There are a lot who really dislike the way White plays though
PeterK
Roar Guru
if you cannot award a 10 for a brilliant game what is the point of having it as an option. To me it does not mean a perfect game or the best ever possible. I think of it as I would like award 9.51 i.e. the player is closer to a 10 than a 9.
Pedro the Maroon
Guest
Brett Hodgson's pass in game 3 2006 is the benchmark for Origin fiascos. It did kickstart Wld's decade of dominance after all.
Hello
Roar Rookie
Agree Red Kev It is worrying that supporters can be so extreme but when you think about it whenever he is brought up here there are some very strong opinions. On that same note I am surprised that beale does not get a similar response.
Rob G
Guest
I have a short memory, but white wasn't too shabby was he?
eagleJack
Roar Guru
I think Cooper's mode score of 5 is spot on. As for Beale, while I don't think a score should be registered for under 10mins of play, he certainly did exactly what you want from an impact player. 7+ would be fair.
Brett McKay
Expert
This week's numbers are on the low side, but when compared to last week, they also feel about right. A lot of 6s and 7s is about spot on for a lot of very solid - but not brilliant - performances. Pocock was the standout, too, but I didn't think he was a 9/10 standout. I didn't think he was as good as last week, for eg. I reckon these a pretty fair reflection as presented, even if it still includes 1s and 10s in the count. The fact we were up near 1000 votes again outweighs the donkey vote anyway..
Patrick Effeney
Editor
Peter, pretty much every player was under ten 1s, except for the ones mentioned. The next was Nic White with 10, then Kurtley Beale and Bernard Foley with 8. I'm working on a better way to convey all the data - the way we used to do it, copying into pie charts doesn't seem to be resonating with our CMS at the moment, which is a little frustrating. At the moment I'm just doing my best to convey the interesting parts of the data to you.
Patrick Effeney
Editor
It truly is so easy. Took me three seconds. Must have taken a good half hour to keep filling it out!
Patrick Effeney
Editor
I have removed the outliers in this case Argy. And I agree. 1s and 10s need to be reserved for mistakes of Justin Hodges Origin fiasco level or brilliance of... I won't get into that for fear of bias accusations ;) I'll leave you guys to figure that one out.
Rob G
Guest
yeh agree with those. except fardy. He doesn't seem to have too many people dislike him/his play does he? I think plenty of the people do not necessarily dislike a player or their play, but they love a player so feel they need to put down their competition. For example i would hypothesise plenty of the people giving quade 10 are also giving foley 1 and vice versa.
PeterK
Roar Guru
I would not be surprised to see your suggestions and as well Simmons with a few 1's Foley a few 1's Fardy a few 1's. Phipp's a few 1's.
PeterK
Roar Guru
The only score that could be valid is Pococks 10 when you consider his most common score is a 9 , having a score of 1 greater than the most common can be argued as reasonable even if it is a 10.